I used to for joke about the manning document for Minuteman Missile Squadrons.One Squadron CommanderThree Operations Branch OfficersFive Flight CommandersEnough officers to provide Combat Crews for the five flightsEnough NCOs to provide Facility Managers for the five flightsOne NCO Admin First SergeantOne Civilian SecretaryOne Airman Second Class Admin ClerkThe Airman Second Class is one of the most over supervised people in the Air Force.And of course you can’t let him pull any details because his time is too valuable.Any time you have base facility inspection coming up every officer from major down in the squadron who is not on alert, CCRR, involved in training, scheduled for AFIT or on leave is in jeans and t-shirts running lawnmowers, string trimmers or painting or cleaning in the squadron offices.

490 SMS June 1970 - June 1974HQ SAC Command Control War Plans Computer Division - System Supervisors [We were the analyst of the SACCS]DOD Contractor DRC Database Designer F-15 & F-16 Consolidated Data System and designed the F-117 initial database

These were the numbers in general, with some flex. For example, I can recall one flight (Charlie) having as many as 9 crews for a couple of months... and Echo having only 3 crews for a couple of months. Sometimes the Flight Commanders were one of the Five crews in the Flight, and most of the time they were a 6th crew. Also, the three missile squadrons rotated guys in and out of the shops (DOV-DOTI). I think each shop was pretty close to a squadron (in size) as well.

Any time you have base facility inspection coming up every officer from major down in the squadron who is not on alert, CCRR, involved in training, scheduled for AFIT or on leave is in jeans and t-shirts running lawnmowers, string trimmers or painting or cleaning in the squadron offices.

For those of you who are making fun of these women, just remember how goofy you looked when you showed up fro Pre-D, or worse, when you changed out of your Crew Blues during your alert. I know for a fact that every one of these ladies looks better than you mugs...probably smells better too!They're doing the job, and doing a fine job of it. We handed them a legacy and they have shouldered it quite well. With two daughters of my own their age, I'm pretty darn proud of what these women have done.Bob Groman

notlaw99 wrote:I can remember back when I was pulling alerts at Malmstrom June 1970 - May 1974. When ever we had a Giant Fox on Base and wing staff was in the back of the class room as a group during the EWO proficiency test trying to cheat with each other like mad.

The longer you had been on crew force the worse the Bold Print exams were, as every answer choice was at one time a correct answer; it was a matter of what did they change the wording and punctuation to in this revision of the manuals.

Amen! That also happened with TO interpretations. I remember during my final standboard ride I was hit with a situation in which the ruling had switched back and forth several times over the years. And my brain locked up; I just couldn't remember the current ruling and my newbie DMCCC was no help. Finally the evaluator made a noise which I interpreted as "get on with it or buy an error for doing nothing." So I mentally flipped a coin and made the call. Lucked into getting it right and finishing my tour with an HQ.

For the life of me I don't remember the issue itself, but to this day I remember the pucker factor.

And...those gee-whiz back and forth rulings should not be rulings at all. The mere fact that Global Thermonuclear War is possible under either interpretation is proof enough of that. We always figured they came from some guy at HQ SAC who was trying for O-4 BTZ.

notlaw99 wrote:I can remember back when I was pulling alerts at Malmstrom June 1970 - May 1974. When ever we had a Giant Fox on Base and wing staff was in the back of the class room as a group during the EWO proficiency test trying to cheat with each other like mad.

The longer you had been on crew force the worse the Bold Print exams were, as every answer choice was at one time a correct answer; it was a matter of what did they change the wording and punctuation to in this revision of the manuals.

Amen! That also happened with TO interpretations. I remember during my final standboard ride I was hit with a situation in which the ruling had switched back and forth several times over the years. And my brain locked up; I just couldn't remember the current ruling and my newbie DMCCC was no help. Finally the evaluator made a noise which I interpreted as "get on with it or buy an error for doing nothing." So I mentally flipped a coin and made the call. Lucked into getting it right and finishing my tour with an HQ.

For the life of me I don't remember the issue itself, but to this day I remember the pucker factor.

And...those gee-whiz back and forth rulings should not be rulings at all. The mere fact that Global Thermonuclear War is possible under either interpretation is proof enough of that. We always figured they came from some guy at HQ SAC who was trying for O-4 BTZ.

Postby TerrorOfTucson on Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:54 amhockey85, what is this "mission planning" of which you speak? Assuming OpSec isn't a problem. Why will it take 3 hours? Back in the dark (missile blue) ages, mission planning would be "I'm trained, I got my -1, warm clothes, my crew, and I know how to get to the LCC. I'm ready (if not rarin') to go guard the country."

Bad SamAmazed am I, to hear such things.Glad am I, no longer to do such things

OK, what's happened with this mission planning thing? The old discussion petered out and got sidetracked. Any current MCCMs around to update us? Inquiring minds want to know.

Haven't a clue what's going on now, as I've already had a last alert and have PCSd. But I've seen it change multiple time in the last year, at least at Minot. Once, it was show up and be briefed by maintenance and security about everything going on by flight. Then separate as squadrons, go over it again, add in other factors and talk about it. Then tell your plan to mitigate risks to the squadron commander. Then leave.

My last month it turned into "Hey, here's the maintenance. Now get on alert". I'm sure it's changed again though.

To sum up the concept though (IMHO), I'd say imagine getting told everything that's going to go on for your day. Then figure out in your mind what risks are there, and say what your are going to do to mitigate that. Then tell someone that so they are happy.

In the 70s we never got briefed on maintenance at pre-dep. We just rolled out to the LCC, took over the alert, and when maintenance, or anyone else showed up, we checked the dispatches to see if they were valid. And then ran the checklist. No muss, no fuss. Except during code change, SELM, IG, or 3901, of course.

SAC Killer wrote:In the 70s we never got briefed on maintenance at pre-dep. We just rolled out to the LCC, took over the alert, and when maintenance, or anyone else showed up, we checked the dispatches to see if they were valid. And then ran the checklist. No muss, no fuss. Except during code change, SELM, IG, or 3901, of course.

Agree with that, just weather, who was flying and who was driving. Few announcements and maybe a test. Briefing on what maintenance was going was done at changeover.

The "mission planning" process has gotten moderately better since it's not a "new" program any more and we don't have weapons officers sitting in to make sure we've adequately wargamed our day, developed risk mitigation "tactics", calculated all our appropriate ORM numbers, and optimized our paradigm shifts.

On most days (assuming we don't have anything being issued to take out to the field) we can be done with pre-departure and mission planning in about 45 minutes.